Pass the code as string and the library executes it? I don't necessarily need the shell that many interpreters provide

BASIC is sorta all about the shell...

As for the provided code, it didn't work! And it's obvious that that is not actually a basic interpreter, but only a "compiler" that translates BASIC code into C code! And it needs more comments!( http://forum.basicprogramming.org/index.php?topic=1824.0;wap2 Follow the links...)

Interpreter Basic is a ancient and cruel form of torture supported by masochists and the ingnorant.

A joke I'm sure, but don't be so dismissive. A tiny number of us were assembling back in the day, an increasing number of people who had to have abstraction used proto C (You talk about torture - they loved error reports), but there was a mass of people who were introduced to microprocessors via Basic (go find the philosophy behind it's development), Fortran, Pascal (later) forth etc. ALL of those pioneers provide the shoulders that we now stand on. The C used in Arduino is stripped down and has to be the easiest implementation I have ever come across and yet it still throws errors from artefacts, at least Basic has the good manners to point out the error and only the error And what exactly is wrong with a goto? It just provides a method for stepping over code, structures like 'case' do the goto's for you. In fact, if you read the reference, you'll find a goto. Anyone can write sloppy code in any language. If you want to be dogmatic and write tight code, pick up the data sheet and start assembling.

The advocates of all languages look down their noses at the other language users, however, if you see someone smiling quietly to himself, trying not to look too aloof, he'll be the assembler in the room

For a real insight, writing languages (and even small OS's) is fun, everyone should try it.

People paid me to write Basic on and off from 1980 to 1999 (last Y2K maintenance). I would BEG them to let it be C or Forth and they'd insist that if it was Basic then it would be more maintainable. Well at least by 85 it was compiled Basic.Interpreter Basic is missing so much it is cruelty to work with. Compiler Basic is less so in proportion to how much it is C/C++ in disguise. I speak from a lot of experience!

Every time I'd get into assembler it seemed like no time before the new chips were out. I did some segments for pay and more for learning but as compilers got really good I said to hell with it. I wasn't making my living keeping with the latest. If anyone is then I'm happy for you, good on yer!

Basic was like a bad habit with no redeeming qualities that I couldn't find in a better, more capable language.

What is wrong with GOTO? Nothing in particular if you can keep your program from turning into spaghetti.OTOH spend time fixing other people's goto-ridden spaghetti code and you might get an idea about goto's.

Basic goto's get over-used by beginners who haven't figured out what gosub is for. But mind you they are superior beginners who already have a way and don't need to rely on gosub tricks.

From the Wikipedia article on Dartmouth Basic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_BASIC

Quote

Variable names were limited to A to Z, A0 to A9, B0 to B9, ..., Z0 to Z9, giving a maximum of 286 possible distinct variables. Array names were restricted to A to Z only

I have found that Bitlash users tend to run out of eeprom before they run out of variable names. And at least they can give their _functions_ proper names so they are steered toward that habit.

While I have the podium may I point out that the syntax of the Bitlash language is much less weird / more compatible with C and Javascript in the 2.0 version and if you haven't given it a look in a while it might be worth dusting off. Here's the User's Guide: http://bitlash.net/bitlash-users-guide.pdf